IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Harold Lischner : No. 05-CV-4546 

 Plaintiff : 

 : 

 vs. : 

 : 

Upper Darby Township and : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

Officer Michael Kehrle : 

 Defendants : 

DEFENDANTS’ PRE-TRIAL MEMORANDUM

 Defendants, Upper Darby Township and Officer Michael Kehrle, by and through 

their attorney, Michael P. Laffey and Robert P. DiDomenicis, hereby file their Pre-Trial 

Memorandum pursuant to the Court’s Revised Scheduling Order dated February 7, 2007. 

I. Nature of Action: 

 Plaintiff alleges a civil rights actions pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff 

asserts a Monell action in connection with an alleged Fourth Amendment violation. 

Jurisdiction is proper in this Court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 

II. Defendants’ Counter-Statement of Facts: 

 On September 15, 2003, President George W. Bush held a private, fund-raising 

event at the Drexelbrook Catering Facility in Upper Darby Township, Pennsylvania. 

President’s event. Members of the Upper Darby Township Police Department were 

assigned to assist “Drexelbrook Associates’” private security and federal agents with 

security for the President’s event. Upper Darby Township Police were instructed by 

“Drexelbrook Associates” that no protesting was permitted on its property, including the 

displaying of signs. An area for protestors was designated on property adjacent to 

“Drexelbrook” that was along the path of the Presidential motorcade. 

Case 2:05-cv-04546-JS Document 25 Filed 05/01/07 Page 1 of 6
Plaintiff appeared on the private property known as “Drexelbrook” and displayed 

a sign in protest of President Bush. Auxiliary police personnel instructed Plaintiff that he 

was not permitted to display his sign at “Drexelbrook,” however, Plaintiff verbally 

refused to comply and continued to display his sign. Sergeant Michael Kehrle arrived on 

the scene and instructed Plaintiff that he was on private property and that 

“Drexelbrook’s” owners would not allow signs on its property. Plaintiff again stated his 

refusal to comply and continued to display his sign. Defendant Kehrle pleaded with 

Plaintiff to comply, however, Plaintiff repeatedly refused. 

“Drexelbrook Associates’” private security also advised Plaintiff that he was on 

private property and that no signs were permitted. Plaintiff again refused to comply and 

continued to display his sign. “Drexelbrook Associates’” private security then instructed 

Plaintiff to leave the property, however, Plaintiff refused to leave. 

 Defendant Kehrle advised Plaintiff that he would have no choice but to arrest 

Plaintiff if he did not leave the property, however, Plaintiff still refused to leave. 

Thereafter, Defendant Kehrle placed Plaintiff under arrest for “Defiant Trespass,” 18 

Pa.C.S. § 3503, a Misdemeanor. Acting out of empathy towards Plaintiff, Defendant 

Kehrle ultimately charged Plaintiff with a lesser, inapplicable charge, i.e., “Disorderly 

Conduct,” a Summary Offense. 

III. Damages: 

 Plaintiff’s damages are of nominal value should Plaintiff prevail. 

IV. Defendants’ Witness List: 

 Defendants may introduce the testimony of the following persons: 

 1. Sergeant Michael Kehrle 

2

Case 2:05-cv-04546-JS Document 25 Filed 05/01/07 Page 2 of 6
 2. Plaintiff, Dr. Harold Lischner 

 3. Captain Michael Kenny 

 

 4. Superintendent Michael Chitwood 

 5. Vincent Ficchi 

 150 Woodlawn Avenue 

Upper Darby, PA 19082 

 Defendants reserve the right to call rebuttal witnesses. 

 

V. Defendants’ Schedule of Exhibits: 

Defendants may introduce the following exhibits at trial: 

 D-1: Plaintiff’s email dated September 16, 2003; 

D-2: Plaintiff’s email dated September 24, 2003; 

D-3: Plaintiff’s drawing of Drexelbrook (“Lischner 1” in transcript of 

Plaintiff’s deposition); 

D-4: Map of Drexelbrook Community (Exhibit “A” in Defendants’ Motion for 

Summary Judgment); 

D-5: Upper Darby Township Police Department Patrol Division Memorandum 

prepared by Captain Michael Kenny; 

 

D-6: Affidavit of William Kay (Exhibit “B” in Defendants’ Motion for 

Summary Judgment); 

D-7: Upper Darby Township Code of Conduct, Directive Number 200.0; 

D-8: Upper Darby Township Code of Discipline, Directive Number 201.0; 

D-9: Upper Darby Township Directive on Use of Force, Directive Number. 

205.00; 

D-10: Non-Traffic Citation/Summons for Disorderly Conduct against Plaintiff; 

D-11: Upper Darby Township Police Department Incident Report (“Kehrle 3” in 

transcript of Sergeant Kehrle’s deposition); 

D-12: Upper Darby Township Police Department Complaints Report (“Kehrle 4” 

in transcript of Sergeant Kehrle’s deposition); 

3

Case 2:05-cv-04546-JS Document 25 Filed 05/01/07 Page 3 of 6
D-13: Upper Darby Township Administrative Code; 

D-14: Upper Darby Township Home Rule Charter; 

D-15: Commendatory Letter regarding Defendant, Sergeant Kehrle by Vincent J. 

Ficchi re: incident on February 24, 2003; 

D-16: Commendation of Merit dated January 25, 1999 regarding Defendant, 

Sergeant Kehrle by Vincent J. Ficchi; 

D-17: Letter from Denise Zschunke to Vincent J. Ficchi re: Defendant, Sergeant 

Michael Kehrle 

Defendants reserve the right to utilize the parties’ pleadings, deposition 

transcripts, and discovery responses at trial. 

VI. Estimate of Length of Trial: 

 Defendants estimate that trial will last a minimum of two (2) and a maximum of 

three (3) days. 

VII. Special Commentary: 

 

 a) Legal Issues: 

Defendants respectfully maintain that the condition imposed by Drexelbrook 

Associates on the night in question was lawful; 

 Defendants respectfully maintain that Defendant Kehrle possessed probable cause 

to arrest Plaintiff, as a matter of law (regardless of the lawfulness of the condition 

imposed by Drexelbrook); 

 Defendants respectfully maintain that Plaintiff failed to adduce sufficient 

evidence to proceed with his claim that Upper Darby Township had a policy of deference 

to property owners; 

 Defendants respectfully maintain that Plaintiff failed to adduce sufficient 

evidence to proceed with his claim that Upper Darby Township failed to properly train its 

4

Case 2:05-cv-04546-JS Document 25 Filed 05/01/07 Page 4 of 6
police officers. 

VIII. Objections (other than relevancy): 

 

 Defendants object on hearsay grounds to any attempt by Plaintiff to introduce 

Plaintiff’s Curriculum Vitae (Item #1 in Plaintiff’s Schedule of Exhibits) and e-mail 

messages (Item #7 in Plaintiff’s Schedule of Exhibits). Defendants reserve all objections 

based on relevancy. 

 Respectfully Submitted, 

 ________________________________ 

 Michael P. Laffey, Esquire 

Attorney I.D. No. 90225 

Holsten & Associates 

One Olive Street 

Media, PA 19063 

(610) 627-2426 

5

Case 2:05-cv-04546-JS Document 25 Filed 05/01/07 Page 5 of 6
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I, Michael P. Laffey, Esquire, counsel for Defendants hereby certifies that a true 

and correct copy of Defendants’ Pretrial Memorandum was served upon the following 

individual via electronically or by U.S. First Class Mail this 1st day of May, 2007: 

 

 Jonathan Feinberg, Esquire 

 Kairys, Rudovsky, et al. 

 924 Cherry Street – Suite 500 

 Philadelphia, PA 19107 

 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 HOLSTEN & ASSOCIATES 

 BY: 

 

 MICHAEL P. LAFFEY, ESQUIRE 

Attorney for Defendants 

6

Case 2:05-cv-04546-JS Document 25 Filed 05/01/07 Page 6 of 6